Purdue University gate at the corner of Stadium Avenue and University Street Monday, February 13, 2017, on the campus of Purdue University.(Photo: John Terhune/Journal & Courier, John Terhune/Journal & Courier)Buy Photo

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – How Purdue University brass laid low for weeks as Fox News and other conservative media outlets played up a supposed ban on the word “man” on the West Lafayette campus – fake news, for sure – is still stuck in the craw of faculty wondering why the world renown Online Writing Lab was hung out to dry.

On Tuesday, faculty leaders from the College of Liberal Arts questioned not only why President Mitch Daniels failed to immediately defend the university as it was being mocked by Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and the network’s “Fox and Friends” morning show, but also why he followed up by casting doubt on the credibility of one of Purdue’s most widely used academic tools.

In a unanimous vote – and despite reassurances from the head of the English Department that the Online Writing Lab was in good hands – the College of Liberal Arts Senate stated that faculty should be consulted on education policy matters. The Senate also declared that it was “unequivocally opposed to educational policies or content in the college being dictated by administrators yielding to pressure from donors or outside media groups, whether conservative or liberal.”

Paul Draper, a philosophy professor and chairman of the college’s Educational Policy Committee, said the resolution was a direct response to the way Daniels and other administrators handled an embarrassing episode.

“One of the most fundamental of all educational policies is that faculty are in charge of the curriculum,” Draper said. “When it comes to curricular matters, the role of administrators is to facilitate, not to lead, and certainly not to dictate,” Draper said. “I hope that this response will help everyone – administrators and faculty alike – to be clearer about the proper role of administrators when it comes to curricular matters.”

In mid-February, Campus Reform – an online outlet that touts itself as a site that “exposes the liberal bias and abuse against conservatives on America’s colleges and universities” – published a piece: “Purdue writing guide: Words with ‘MAN’ should be avoided.”

The Campus Reform piece was based on an Online Writing Lab preamble that advised, “Writing in a non-sexist, non-biased way is both ethically sound and effective. Non-sexist writing is necessary for most audiences; if you write in a sexist manner and alienate much of your audience from your discussion, your writing will be much less effective.” Among the examples, on the Purdue site since 1994: use “police officer,” instead of “policeman;” use “doctor,” instead of “lady doctor; use “synthetic,” instead of “man-made.”

The Campus Reform account was quickly picked up by a number of media outlets that twisted the guidance on style as an outright effort to scrub the word “man” from all aspects of campus writing and conversations.

Instead of fighting, Purdue rode it out. (Even after Carlson called Purdue “an accredited university, apparently,” where it’s easy “to bully the little, rich kids who go to your school” and pay “like $60 grand, or whatever it is, for the fake diploma you get.”)

Provost Jay Akridge told faculty on the University Senate in March that the university decided that protesting the Fox reports “would just create a bigger reaction than it would be worth.”

In the weeks after the media reports, the Online Writing Lab page on “stereotypes and biased language” was scrubbed of some of what Akridge called “a bit overly prescriptive” language. Akridge also said that, from then on, editorial control of the writing lab would be guided by an advisory board, overseen by the dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Akridge, at the time, said Purdue didn’t bend to media pressure.

But in mid-March, in a letter to Purdue faculty, students and alumni, Daniels said Purdue learned one lesson, even if “these accounts were inaccurate.”

“The media reports did serve one useful purpose,” Daniels wrote. “They helped us realize that the website, developed over 20 years ago, has not had the level of supervision something this prominent should have. Going forward, there will be clear editorial oversight of OWL by the College of Liberal Arts, who will ensure it is maintained at the high standards Boilermakers expect.”

Which brings us to this week and questions still simmering among faculty about administrators sticking their hands where they don’t belong.

Dorsey Armstrong, head of the English Department, on Tuesday told faculty that "the ensuing brouhaha was a bit of a nightmare" in the wake of reports that weren't true about a ban on certain words. She said the Online Writing Lab has always had oversight. (“Everything you see on a page has been vetted,” said Harry Denny, director of the writing lab. “It’s nowhere near a Wiki,” which is open to editing by anyone.) Armstrong called the editing on the page more a matter of streamlining than changing style guidelines.

Asked whether the administration was coming down on her office, Armstrong said that wasn’t the case. She said Denny had been asked to assemble candidates for the new advisory board.

“Our understanding is there will not be any entity forced upon us from on high,” Armstrong said. “In other words, we will not have people outside the profession telling us what to do and what to change.”

Armstrong and Denny left the meeting room in the basement of the Wilmeth Active Learning Center after the Q&A session and were not part of the vote on a resolution that asked Purdue to “protect the OWL’s autonomy, now and in the future, from external pressures to conform to uninformed and politically inspired opinion.”

David Reingold, College of Liberal Arts dean, said the advisory board would be similar to ones that guide other style guides used in academia and professional worlds.

“It’s fine to have faculty weigh in,” Reingold said. “But I don’t see that there’s going to be a particular problem going forward.”

Draper, though, let on that there was a particular problem when the administration failed to publicly defend the scholarly integrity of such a high-profile part of Purdue.

This week, nearly two months after Tucker Carlson and others had a field day at Purdue’s expense, all based on a false premise, faculty is still simmering.

MORE

► Here is the statement made in April by Educational Policy Committee, a seven-member board that makes recommendations for changes to the list of courses satisfying the different areas of the College of Liberal Arts core curriculum at Purdue University:

The Educational Policy Committee takes this opportunity occasioned by public debate regarding Purdue’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) to highlight the importance attached to this tool precisely for its well-considered and thoughtful summation of globally accepted professional standards of writing. Specifically, the committee commends the guideline for advising writers to avoid outmoded sexist terminology and embrace gender-neutral language wherever specificity of language is desirable and conducive to effective communication. This committee urges those in high administrative ranks within the university to likewise champion and openly recognize the OWL’s established authority and well-deserved prestige established in the field of writing standards. We call on the college and university leadership to publicly and clearly defend the OWL’s scholarly integrity and protect the OWL’s autonomy, now and in the future, from external pressures to conform to uninformed and politically inspired opinion.

► This is the resolution the College of Liberal Arts Senate approved Tuesday:

The CLA Senate declares that only CLA faculty members have the right to make decisions about educational content in the College of Liberal Arts and that the Educational Policy Committee should be consulted, when appropriate, on matters of educational policy. It is unequivocally opposed to educational policies or content in the College being dictated by administrators yielding to pressure from donors or outside media groups, whether conservative or liberal.